Militia question 1

[Earthborn]

It's all about the physics.

In the end you can reduce everything to physics, even subjective experience. That's not relevant however. What is relevant is that what we call 'music' happens in our brains, ultimately it is how our brains interpret the signals that reach it. This makes it a subjective experience and what one person has learned to appreciate as music is noise to someone else, however it is mathematically constructed.

It wouldn't sound at all right if the music ended on that chord; your brain would be waiting for a resolution.

Does it not sound right because there is something objectively wrong with it, or because people have learned how the end of a musical piece is supposed to sound like? Maybe a bit of both, I guess, but the fact that something 'does not sound right' is still a subjective experience. God didn't decide that it doesn't sound right, people did.

Human brains are actually wired up quite differently. Neural networks are meant to be an approximation of how the brain works, but physically they're quite different.

Yes, of course. They learn however instead of measuring physical properties. If a neural network is able to determine what music is beautiful and which is not, it is more likely that it has learned what beautiful music is supposed to sound like from people. Instead of determining making the decision based on physical properties, it makes the decision based on what it has learned from subjective experience from its trainer, intersubjectively.

The dog is supposed to be able to make value judgements on each and every action and weigh it against the possible consequences.

If you say that the dog is supposed to be able to do that, you first have to show that people are able to do that.

People do it all the time!

Then it should not be so hard to come up with an example.

can the dog only stop bad behavior that he's been specifically trained for, or can he also apply what he's learned to new situations?

I think it all depends on how new a new situation is allowed to be. Every living creature is able to adapt to some degree to new situations, how well they are able depends on how easily they can generalise a new situation by previous associations and can find things it can recognise in a new situation. People are very good at this, but I have never noticed a dog being totally lost when it is in an environment it was never before.

I'm pretty sure that if you have taught your dog not to chew on your slippers, it will also not chew on someone else's slippers when it is in someone else's house, even if those slippers look very differently.

 

[Earthborn]

Well, in music it is called improvisation... And not all humans (or musicians) can do it worth a damn.

Training in fighting skills comes to mind, since a real attack rarely resembles anything experienced in training...and many trained fighters cannot adapt, some apparently can.

Good examples. Of course one would wonder whether it really means people being able to act in situations it has not trained for, or whether these humans have trained to react quickly and appropriately in a large number of situations.

It also shows something I noticed about a lot of experiments that supposedly prove that animals do not exhibit a specific trait assumed to be universal to humans. Often they try to test whether the animals can do something that is an exceptional ability even for humans.

Always reminds me of an old joke: a man is playing chess against his dog. Someone else comes along who is very surprised because of this. "You managed to teach a dog to play chess? That dog must be incredibly smart!" "Smart? No, he always loses!"

If experiments are not designed to set the animal up to lose, the results are often very hard to interpret and don't show a clear distinction between human abilities and animal abilities. There are of course some differences between dogs and humans. But it is quite difficult to design fair experiments where humans are not beaten by chimps or pigs...

 

[CFLarsen]

The language used to label it is the human construct.

Without anyone telling me (ie if I lived in absolute solidtude) I would be free to speak, bear arms, worship how I wanted to, etc.

But you cannot have language without human construct. The second you start forming words, you start forming ideas.

 

[CFLarsen]

Shanek obviously does not listen to a whole lot of music, other than Lawrence Welk...

 

[c0rbin]

But you cannot have language without human construct. The second you start forming words, you start forming ideas.

I think you and Interesting Ian might have an opportunity for some conversation.

 

[shanek]

In the end you can reduce everything to physics, even subjective experience. That's not relevant however. What is relevant is that what we call 'music' happens in our brains, ultimately it is how our brains interpret the signals that reach it.

But this has NOTHING to do with the claim that you made. Are you REALLY saying that you can take two children, given them exactly the same musical education and have them practice exactly the same tunes for the exact same amount of time, and have one come through sounding like a towering virtuoso while another struggles, and this isn't an objective test of musical abilities?

Does it not sound right because there is something objectively wrong with it, or because people have learned how the end of a musical piece is supposed to sound like?

No, it sounds "not right" because the frequencies are dissonant to one another. And this is true of people no matter the cultural background, even to people who have never heard music before.

If you say that the dog is supposed to be able to do that, you first have to show that people are able to do that.

People do it all the time. Pretending otherwise is just plain silly.

Then it should not be so hard to come up with an example.

I can't believe you're seriously denying this!!!

I'm pretty sure that if you have taught your dog not to chew on your slippers, it will also not chew on someone else's slippers when it is in someone else's house, even if those slippers look very differently.

Not the same thing! Not the same thing at all! "Don't chew on things" is enforced behavior. It's not the dog making a value judgement all on its own.

 

[shanek]

Shanek obviously does not listen to a whole lot of music, other than Lawrence Welk...

Claus, do you realize how many people you just discredited yourself in front of? I don't listen to a lot of music?????



Okay, Claus, TAM3, you and me: duelling pianos! I'll Beethoven and Debussy all over your ass!

 

[CFLarsen]

I think you and Interesting Ian might have an opportunity for some conversation.

Let me amend that one: The moment everybody but Ian...

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, do you realize how many people you just discredited yourself in front of? I don't listen to a lot of music?????



Okay, Claus, TAM3, you and me: duelling pianos! I'll Beethoven and Debussy all over your ass!

Learning to play doesn't mean that you understand the music. Even a monkey can learn how to bang a drum.

 

[shanek]

Learning to play doesn't mean that you understand the music. Even a monkey can learn how to bang a drum.

Weasel away, woo-woo...

 

[Earthborn]

Are you REALLY saying that you can take two children, given them exactly the same musical education and have them practice exactly the same tunes for the exact same amount of time, and have one come through sounding like a towering virtuoso while another struggles, and this isn't an objective test of musical abilities?

What constitutes as a 'towering virtuoso' and 'struggling' is a subjective value judgement, yes I am really saying that.

All you can prove objectively is that there are lots of people within a culture who consider them towering virtuoso or struggler. You prove that they have a talent for producing the music people consider good intersubjectively, but that's not proof that the music they produce is good objectively. For that you need to show the musical taste of God.

No, it sounds "not right" because the frequencies are dissonant to one another.

I rather like dissonants, so what sounds 'not right' for one person apperently sounds okay to another.

And this is true of people no matter the cultural background

I assume you can provide a link to some research that has shown this to be true. How does this prove that music appreciation is objective rather than intersubjective?

even to people who have never heard music before.

What kind of people are that?

I can't believe you're seriously denying this!!!

I am not denying anything. I am asking you to provide evidence for your claims. I don't accept "it is obvious", "happens all the time" or "i can't believe you're seriously denying this!!!" as evidence.

If something is obviously true, it should be easy to provide evidence that it is. If you can't provide evidence that it is, perhaps you should not consider it so obvious.

Not the same thing! Not the same thing at all! "Don't chew on things" is enforced behavior. It's not the dog making a value judgement all on its own.

What is the difference between 'enforced behaviour' and 'making a value judgement all on its own' ?

Okay, Claus, TAM3, you and me: duelling pianos! I'll Beethoven and Debussy all over your ass!

You are threatening him again!

(Who was it again who said that pianos are just as deadly as guns? So how do you think Claus is going to interpret you when you challenge him for a piano duel. )

 

[Sushi]

I'll just put my two cents in, although I haven't really followed the argument.

All appreciation of things occurs in the brain. It's an abstract interpretation of sensory information. So, in theory, a creature could find enjoyment in loud screeches and complete harmonic dissonance (harmony is NOT necessarily needed for music, however-- see Oriental music).

Humans, however, have a certain tendency to find certain sounds and combinations pleasing. As far as I know, no culture has called mindless banging on pots and pans music.

So, sound waves themselves have no intrinsic value such as "good" or "bad"-- but humans assign them value in a predictable pattern. And since we are discussing humans, we can use "objective" criteria to determine what humans may like, other than oneself's personal preference.

But of course, the appreciation of music among humans is intersubjective.

 

[shanek]

What constitutes as a 'towering virtuoso' and 'struggling' is a subjective value judgement, yes I am really saying that.

Okay, then I really don't see the point in attempting to have a discussion with you...

For that you need to show the musical taste of God.

No, I merely have to show the physical properties of music and how well they conform to that.

I rather like dissonants,

So do I, but what wasn't what I was saying. Read it again.

I assume you can provide a link to some research that has shown this to be true.

Pretty much any source on music theory will do.

How does this prove that music appreciation is objective rather than intersubjective?

I didn't say music appreciation was objective. That's a different thing entirely.

What kind of people are that?[/b]

People who grow up in remote areas of the world and move to civilization, for example. Or deaf people who are able to gain their hearing with modern medical technology.

I am not denying anything. I am asking you to provide evidence for your claims.

Have you never made a value judgement? Why would that not be sufficient evidence?

I don't accept "it is obvious", "happens all the time" or "i can't believe you're seriously denying this!!!" as evidence.

Well, you're essentially asking me to prove the sky is blue here.

What is the difference between 'enforced behaviour' and 'making a value judgement all on its own'?

Enforced behavior is "in situation X, being a situation I have specifically been trained for, do or don't do Y." Don't chew on things; don't pee in the house; don't bite. Making a value judgement is being able to discern the consequences of your actions—why you shouldn't pee in the house or chew on things or bite people, and this allows you to do it for situation W, being a situation you were never trained for.

You are threatening him again!

(Who was it again who said that pianos are just as deadly as guns? So how do you think Claus is going to interpret you when you challenge him for a piano duel. )

Shhh! Don't give him any ideas!

 

[Sushi]

Anyone can glean information from this source. It's not guarenteed to be accuarate, but I've found wikipedia, surprisingly, usually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory


Edit: As for Claus, he will probably make a long diatribe on how the skeptical community's reputation is at stake and it is his right to know if shane will keep a concealed piano.

 

[shanek]

By the way, elephants have created music—and there are a lot of similarities between elephant music and human music, for pretty much the reasons I've given above (although obviously the music is VERY different in so many other ways).

All they did at first is give them instruments—elephants can play harmonicas or percussion instruments—and let them have at it. At first, they just had fun making noise. But over time, they slowly started playing together, developing rhythm and musical progression and even "singing" along!

 

[shanek]

Edit: As for Claus, he will probably make a long diatribe on how the skeptical community's reputation is at stake and it is his right to know if shane will keep a concealed piano.

What, this bulge? That's a swollen lymph node. Oh my! It's not noticeable, is it???

 

[Mercutio]

No, it sounds "not right" because the frequencies are dissonant to one another. And this is true of people no matter the cultural background, even to people who have never heard music before.

Fascinating. I wonder if you and I have vastly different experiences when listening to, say, Chinese classical music. I used to have a handful of internet music stations--Chinese, Persian, Turkish--that played classical music which was, to my ear, dissonant and unpleasant. My wife's singing group has done Hungarian music which was dissonant to them, but was not to Hungarians in the audience. When Stravinsky's "the Rite of Spring" came out, it was outrageous; now we wonder what the big deal was...

(oh, and another book, considerably less expensive and less technical, is "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy", and I recommend it as well)

Not the same thing! Not the same thing at all! "Don't chew on things" is enforced behavior. It's not the dog making a value judgement all on its own.

We can shape some pretty remarkable stuff in rats, pigeons, dogs, etc., in the lab. One that might fit your requirements is "concept learning" in pigeons...if you train them to discriminate among photographs with and without people in them, they can then continue this discrimination with new photos they had never been exposed to before...Of course, you may say, they are not "making value judgments on their own", but I would suggest that the onus is on you to say how people do any differently. Our own behavior is "enforced behavior", to use your term; we have, just as dogs, had our behavior shaped by exposure to environmental contingencies.

(if you don't like "concept learning in pigeons", I could share research on creativity in dolphins, or even in rats and pigeons, if you like. If we start to reinforce novel behaviors and not reinforce repetitions of old behaviors, it is remarkable how creative organisms can be...human and other species.)

 

[shanek]

Fascinating. I wonder if you and I have vastly different experiences

The experiences are subjective. I never said otherwise. And there are practically an infinite number of ways these musical principles can be expressed.

when listening to, say, Chinese classical music.

I love Chinese classical music.

My wife's singing group has done Hungarian music which was dissonant to them, but was not to Hungarians in the audience.

I submit that it was dissonant to both groups of people; the latter had just developed an understanding and appreciation for it. That's the subjective part.

 

[Earthborn]

No, I merely have to show the physical properties of music and how well they conform to that.

So you think that purely by looking at the physical properties of music, and without presenting it to your subjective mind, you can decide whether a musical piece is good or not? I like to know how you do that.

I didn't say music appreciation was objective. That's a different thing entirely.

I think you did. You said that it was possible to decide whether someone has musical ability can be determined objectively. Someone who judges the musical ability of someone does that by deciding whether he or she appreciates it. People make value judgements on what they think shows good musical ability, and whatever they consider good musical ability is what constitutes good musical ability. It does not prove musical ability is objective: objectively it is just making a whole lot of air vibrate.

People who grow up in remote areas of the world and move to civilization, for example.

And they didn't have music themselves in those remote areas?

Have you never made a value judgement? Why would that not be sufficient evidence?

I sure have made value judgements. I also have exhibited enforced behaviour. I don't consider it to be sufficient evidence that I can make value judgements but animals can't, because I don't know the difference. It seems to me that all my value judgements are the result of enforced behaviour I learned when I was a child or are still learning.

Well, you're essentially asking me to prove the sky is blue here.

No, I am asking you to prove a little bit of evidence for something that is both philosophically and scientifically highly controversial, so controversial in fact that most behaviourial scientists have abandoned the distinction human and animal abilities altogether. I don't expect you to prove it conclusively because I know you can't. All I am asking for a little bit of evidence that points in your way.

(btw: the sky is not always blue)

Enforced behavior is "in situation X, being a situation I have specifically been trained for, do or don't do Y." Don't chew on things; don't pee in the house; don't bite. Making a value judgement is being able to discern the consequences of your actions—why you shouldn't pee in the house or chew on things or bite people, and this allows you to do it for situation W, being a situation you were never trained for.

I fail to see any objective difference between the two.

By the way, elephants have created music

Sure, so have moths. All it shows is that nervous systems have certain properties that are similar to eachother. The recognition and production of music still happens inside nervous systems, making them subjective experiences. Outside of the subjective realm it is just vibrating air, not music.

 

[shanek]

So you think that purely by looking at the physical properties of music, and without presenting it to your subjective mind, you can decide whether a musical piece is good or not?

I didn't say anything about good; I don't know why people in this thread keep attributing this to me. But I can determine whether or not it's music or just random noise.

You said that it was possible to decide whether someone has musical ability can be determined objectively.

Right. And that is their ability to make music as opposed to random noise.

Someone who judges the musical ability of someone does that by deciding whether he or she appreciates it.

Absolutely incorrect. There are all sorts of objective criteria that they use.

It does not prove musical ability is objective: objectively it is just making a whole lot of air vibrate.

As I have pointed out, music causes the air to vibrate in very specific ways. Noise is air vibrating; music is a particular structure of this noise.

And they didn't have music themselves in those remote areas?

In many cases, no.

I sure have made value judgements. I also have exhibited enforced behaviour. I don't consider it to be sufficient evidence that I can make value judgements but animals can't, because I don't know the difference.

Did someone have to teach you how to deal with each and every challenge or decision you have made in your entire life?

It seems to me that all my value judgements are the result of enforced behaviour I learned when I was a child or are still learning.

But it's not limited to the precise lessons of that enforcement. That's the point.

(btw: the sky is not always blue)

Not when it's cloudy.

I fail to see any objective difference between the two.

You don't see any objective difference at all between learning a particular lesson and being able to apply what you've learned to new situations?

Sure, so have moths.

This story doesn't say much. Were these moths taught to do something, or is it just reading harmonic vibrations that all moths eminate?

All it shows is that nervous systems have certain properties that are similar to eachother. The recognition and production of music still happens inside nervous systems, making them subjective experiences. Outside of the subjective realm it is just vibrating air, not music.

Again, I have pointed out all sorts of things that make music unique from other forms of "vibrating air."